Re-Examining Doubts Concerning the Practical Value of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu: Focusing on the Absence of Methods for Regulating the Body and Breath

Abstract

The Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu (Fajie guan 法界觀) is frequently criticized for lacking practical value due to its “theoretical” character—specifically, the absence of concrete methods for regulating the body (tiaoshen 調身) and regulating the breath (tiaoxi 調息), while containing only abstract discussions on regulating the mind (tiaoxin 調心). However, this absence does not negate its practical value. In essence, it belongs to dhyāna contemplation (changuan 禪觀), where methods for regulating the body and breath are widely shared; therefore, their omission is inconsequential. Nevertheless, this effectively establishes a threshold: practitioners must either be capable of regulating the body and breath or possess the capacity to acquire such resources from other sources. Given that it emerged and flourished in Sui–Tang (隋唐) Chang’an (長安)—a milieu characterized by eminent monks and abundant Buddhist resources—this threshold was easy to cross. Thereafter, it was continuously transmitted; however, this threshold restricted practitioners primarily to the elite. Ultimately, the Qing (清) Master Xufa 續法 (1641–1728) provided the required supplements, completing its practical framework.

1. Introduction

Zhixu 智旭 (1599–1655) once provided a concise summary of the essence of Buddhism: “The essence of the teachings of the Buddhas and patriarchs is nothing but doctrine and contemplation (jiaoguan 教觀)” (「佛祖之要, 教觀而已矣」) (Zhixu n.d.a, p. 936c22). That is to say, what the Buddhas and patriarchs transmitted consists of nothing more than two parts: doctrinal teaching (jiaoli 教理), representing theory, and contemplative practice (guanxing 觀行), representing practice. Regarding the Huayan school (Huayan zong 華嚴宗), its theoretical aspect is characterized by the unimpeded interpenetration of all phenomena (shishi wu’ai 事事無礙), while its practical aspect is represented by the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu (Fajie guan 法界觀). The Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu is traditionally attributed to Dushun 杜順 (557–640), the first patriarch of the Huayan school. Its earliest extant text is found in the Huayan Treatise on Arousing the Bodhicitta (Huayan fa putixin zhang 華嚴發菩提心章) by Fazang 法藏 (643–712). The text’s later transmission primarily relied on the Profound Mirror of the Huayan Dharmadhātu (Huayan fajie xuanjing 華嚴法界玄鏡) by Chengguan 澄觀 (737–838, or 738–839) and the Commentary on the Gate of Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu (Zhu Huayan fajie guanmen 注華嚴法界觀門) by Zongmi 宗密 (780–841).1 In terms of content, the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu encompasses three methods of contemplation: the “Contemplation of True Emptiness” (zhenkong guan 真空觀), the “Contemplation of the Non-obstruction of Principle and Phenomena” (lishi wu’ai guan 理事無礙觀), and the “Contemplation of Total Pervasion and Inclusion” (zhoubian hanrong guan 周遍含容觀). It constructs a progressively advancing sequence of contemplative practice, ultimately pointing to the ultimate realm of the unimpeded interpenetration of all phenomena. However, there are divergent views within the academic community regarding whether the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu truly possesses practical value. According to the two Buddhist approaches of “understanding and practice” (jiexing 解行), the “gate of understanding” (jiemen 解門) focuses on the intellectual comprehension of doctrines, while the “gate of practice” (xingmen 行門) emphasizes cultivated practice. Some scholars argue that the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu emphasizes doctrinal elucidation and holds only the intellectual value of the gate of understanding, lacking the practical value of the gate of practice. Conversely, other scholars hold differing opinions and are dedicated to defending the practical value of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu.

The rationale of the skeptics is relatively consistent: the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu is excessively theoretical, presenting itself overall as abstract philosophical discourse rather than concrete guidance for practice (see, e.g., Lü 1979, pp. 366–67; S. Wang 2012, pp. 55–67; Yūki 1958, pp. 587–92; Kamata 1968, pp. 360–61, cited in S. Wang 2008, pp. 142–43). The theoretical character of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu is indeed an academic consensus, but some scholars argue that being theoretical does not mean a lack of practical value. Relevant research can be divided into three categories. The first category simply assumes that the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu possesses practical value without providing specific explanations (see, e.g., Huang 2013, pp. 55–74). The second category defends it using the Huayan school’s perfectly interfused concept of “doctrine is contemplation” (jiaoji guan 教即觀) (see, e.g., Y. Chen 1995, pp. 362–85). The third category adopts a more moderate stance, acknowledging only the operability of the “Contemplation of True Emptiness” (see, e.g., Kimura 1977, p. 345, cited in S. Wang 2012, pp. 55–67). Although the arguments endorsing the practical value of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu provide numerous referential ideas and materials, they all have shortcomings. Simply assuming the practical value of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu is clearly unconvincing. Attempting to dispel this skepticism with the perfectly interfused concept of “doctrine is contemplation” is also untenable. This is because, in Buddhism, “doctrine is contemplation” is often directed toward a minority of practitioners with superior spiritual faculties (for details, see Zhixu n.d.b, pp. 502a4–10). Moreover, within the Huayan school’s system, the dichotomy of doctrine and contemplation remains the norm. The rationale for attributing the practical value of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu solely to the “Contemplation of True Emptiness” is that the “Contemplation of True Emptiness” has clear sequential steps, whereas the latter two contemplations carry an obvious sense of juxtaposition, resembling more descriptions of realms. However, the structural distinction between progression and juxtaposition does not equate to the difference between practice and realm.2 Furthermore, none of the aforementioned defenses directly address the core argument of the critics—that theoretical methods of contemplation lack practical value.

As the core method of practice of the Huayan school, whether the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu possesses a practical value not only concerns the effectiveness of the school’s cultivation methods but may also affect the cornerstone of the Huayan school’s status as a distinct school;3 therefore, this issue urgently requires re-examination. However, the label “theoretical” is itself too generalized to serve as a direct entry point for research. Therefore, the primary task of this re-examination is not to directly judge whether this skepticism is valid, but rather to clarify what specific issues the so-called “theoretical” character actually entails. Only on this basis can we further ask: is this ultimately an omission in the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu, or are there other underlying considerations?

2. Clarifying the Issue: The “Theoretical” Character and the Absence of Methods for Regulating the Body and Breath

Tiantai calming and contemplation4 (Tiantai zhiguan 天台止觀) is generally regarded as a typical representative of the practical cultivation of Chinese Buddhism, and its practical value is universally recognized. Academic research on the practical value of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu is also frequently conducted in comparison with Tiantai calming and contemplation. However, Tiantai calming and contemplation also extensively employs abstract theories, such as the “perfectly interfused three truths” (yuanrong sandi 圓融三諦), the “three contemplations in a single mind” (yixin sanguan 一心三觀), and “three thousand realms in a single moment of thought” (yinian sanqian 一念三千). Thus, it is evident that abstract theory itself is not necessarily an obstacle to practical value. The reason lies in the fact that Buddhism aims at the liberation of the mind; therefore, methods for regulating the mind5 (tiaoxin 調心) are the core. Methods for regulating the mind can generally be divided into two categories: the contemplation of phenomena (shiguan 事觀) and the contemplation of principle (liguan 理觀). The contemplation of phenomena primarily focuses on concrete phenomenal appearances, while the contemplation of principles focuses on abstract noumenal principles. As Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597) stated: “First, the contemplation of phenomena: the so-called mindfulness of breathing (anban 安般), the contemplation of impurity (bujing guan 不淨觀), and so on, are phenomenal cultivation (shixiu 事修). Second, the contemplation of principle: the so-called contemplations of emptiness (kong 空) and signlessness (wuxiang 無相) are the cultivation of principle (lixiu 理修)” (「一、事觀, 所謂安般、不淨觀等, 即是事修; 二、理觀, 所謂空、無相等觀, 即是理修」) (Zhiyi 569–572, pp. 498c20–22). The abstract theories in the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu and Tiantai calming and contemplation belong to the category of the contemplation of principle. Moreover, the Buddhist tradition is also primarily centered on the contemplation of principle and particularly emphasizes its fundamental status. Zhiyi also stated: “The coarse is the contemplation of phenomena, and the subtle is the contemplation of principle” (「麁是事觀, 細是理觀」) (Zhiyi n.d.a, pp. 562b7–8). Therefore, the issue with the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu does not lie in its use of abstract theory, as this is the norm for methods of regulating the mind. However, further comparison reveals that although Tiantai calming and contemplation contains much theory in its section on regulating the mind, it still includes content on regulating the body6 (tiaoshen 調身) and regulating the breath (tiaoxi 調息). These parts provide concrete and visual guidance, ensuring that the entire text does not become completely abstract. The Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu, on the other hand, entirely omits regulating the body and breath; the entire text is filled with abstract theory. This is the specific reason for its “theoretical” character. In other words, the problem with the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu is not that it uses abstract theory, but that it only has abstract theory—that is, it lacks methods for regulating the body and the breath.

Comparatively speaking, the absence of methods for regulating the body and breath in the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu is indeed unconventional in Buddhism; the model of jointly regulating the body, breath, and mind presented in Tiantai calming and contemplation represents the normative pattern. Even before the emergence of Buddhism, the joint regulation of the body, breath, and mind was a consensus in Indian yogic practice, documented as early as the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (Olivelle 1998, pp. 417–21). Buddhism absorbed this model, maintaining a continuous transmission from early Buddhism through the Nikāya and Mahāyāna, and ultimately into Sinitic Buddhism. As Daoxin 道信 (580–651) stated in his Essential Expedient Dharma-Gate for Calming the Mind and Entering the Way (Rudao anxin yao fangbian famen 入道安心要方便法門):

First, sit upright in a proper posture, loosen your clothing and belt, and relax your body. Perform self-massage seven or eight times, expelling all the stagnant breath from your chest and abdomen. You will then feel completely at ease, clear, empty, and tranquil. With the body and mind well-adjusted, pacify your mental spirit (xinshen 心神); it will become deep and profound, and your breath will be clear and cool. Gradually gather in your mind; your spiritual path will be clear and sharp, and your mind-ground will be bright and pure.” (先端身正坐，寬衣解帶，放身縱體，自按摩七八翻，令心腹中嗌氣出盡。即滔然得性，清虛恬淨。身心調適，然安心神，則窈窈冥，氣息清冷。徐徐斂心，神道清利，心地明淨。).

(Daoxin n.d., pp. 1289a10–14. For more relevant information, see, e.g., Guṇabhadra 443, pp. 206a23–b13; Saṃghabhadra 654, pp. 657c7–735a16; Xuanzang and Maitreya 648, pp. 395c6–477c1; Kumārajīva 402, pp. 269c26–286a12)

The reason this model is so widely adopted is that, although Buddhist cultivation prioritizes regulating the mind, the body, mind, and breath mutually influence one another. This is frequently elucidated in the sūtras and śāstras:

If one’s physical actions are coarse and rough, the breath will follow and become coarse; because the breath is coarse, the mind will scatter and be difficult to gather; furthermore, when sitting, one will feel vexed and muddled, and the mind will not be tranquil and joyful. (若所作麁獷，則氣息隨麁；以氣麁故，則心散難錄；兼復坐時煩憒，心不恬怡。).

(Zhiyi n.d.b, pp. 465c9–11)

If one exerts forced effort to count the inhalations and exhalations, the breath becomes constrained, which causes unharmonious wind (feng 風/vāyu) to arise within the body. Due to this wind, the pulse in the bodily members (shenzhi 身支) initially becomes rapid and overflowing. As this wind increases, it can induce illness; the arising of illness in the bodily members is termed “physical disequilibrium” (shen bupingdeng 身不平等). Alternatively, forcefully counting the breaths may mentally constrain the practitioner, leading to madness, or causing them to be overwhelmed by profound sorrow; this is termed “mental disequilibrium” (xin bupingdeng 心不平等). (若時力勵數入出息，息被逼迫，便令身中不和風起，由此風故初令身支諸脈洪數。此風增位能引病生，以身支病生，名身不平等。或由力勵數入出息，心被逼切便致狂亂，或為重憂之所摧伏，如是名曰心不平等。).

(Saṃghabhadra 654, pp. 673c21–26)

The mind transforms the fire (火/tejas), the fire transforms the wind, the wind transforms the water (水/ap), and the water transforms the earth (地/pṛthivī); as the four great elements (四大/mahābhūta) become refined, the eight tactile sensations (bachu 八觸) arise. (心轉火, 火轉風, 風轉水, 水轉地; 四大轉細, 故有八觸。).

(Zhiyi 594, p. 119a22–23)

Question: What is meant by the breath being long or short? Answer: It is like a person climbing a mountain; if they are burdened and exhausted, their breath is short. The practitioner is similar; when in a coarse mind, the breath is short. A ‘coarse mind’ refers to a mind that is agitated, hurried, and scattered. Regarding a long breath, when the practitioner is in a subtle mind, the breath is long. Why is this? As the mind becomes subtle, the breath also becomes subtle. It is like that same person who, having stopped after extreme exhaustion, finds their breath becoming subtle, and at that time, the breath becomes long. (問曰: 雲何名息長短? 答曰: 如人上山, 若擔重疲乏故息短。行者亦爾, 在麁心中爾時則短。麁心者, 所謂躁疾散亂心也。息長者, 行者在細心中則息長。所以者何? 隨心細故息亦隨細, 如即此人疲極止故息則隨細, 爾時則長息。).

(Harivarman 412, pp. 355c20–25)

The above citations illustrate, respectively, the influence of the body on the breath and mind, the influence of the breath on the body and mind, and the influence of the mind on the body and breath. Furthermore, because cultivation generally follows a sequential progression—from coarse to subtle, from exterior to interior, and from phenomenal cultivation to the cultivation of principle—the fundamental order is first to regulate the body, next to regulate the breath, and finally to regulate the mind. As Zhiyi stated: “Entering samādhi fundamentally proceeds from the coarse to the subtle. Since the body is the coarsest, the breath is intermediate, and the mind is the most subtle and still. One regulates the coarse to approach the subtle, thereby bringing the mind to a state of tranquil stillness.” (「夫入定本是從麁入細, 是以身既為麁, 息居其中, 心最為細靜。調麁就細, 令心安靜。」) (Zhiyi n.d.b, pp. 466b1–3). It should be noted that what is discussed here is the sequence of the gradual approach (jianci fa 漸次法). If it pertains to the perfect and sudden approach (yuandun fa 圓頓法), it does not necessarily have to follow this model. The Huayan school also encompasses these two models, namely, the “gate of perfect interfusion” (yuanrong men 圓融門) and the “gate of sequential progression” (xingbu men 行布門) (for details, see Fazang 692, pp. 108c3–8; Chengguan 787, pp. 504b16–28). For example, the “gate of infinitely overlapping Buddha-recitation” (chongchong wujin nianfo men 重重無盡念佛門) elucidated by Chengguan, the “contemplation of the infinite Indra’s net” (diwang wujin guan 帝網無盡觀) developed from the “practices and vows of Samantabhadra” (Puxian xingyuan 普賢行願), and the “bodhisattva liberation gate of transcending the boundary of greed” (pusa litan ji jietuo men 菩薩離貪際解脫門) taught by Vasumitrā in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Huayan jing 華嚴經) (for details, see Chengguan 798, pp. 99c1–4; Daochen n.d., pp. 992b22–993b2; Śikṣānanda 699, pp. 365b05–366a24), all belong to the “gate of perfect interfusion”. As for the three contemplations in the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu, they advance step by step, clearly belonging to the “gate of sequential progression”. As Daotong 道通 (dates unknown) of the Song (宋) dynasty stated: “The threefold Dharmadhātu ascends from the lower to the higher, gradually becoming deeper and broader.” (「夫三重法界，從下升上，漸次深廣。」) (Daotong n.d., p. 528a8).

From this, it is evident that behind the “theoretical” character of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu, the specific underlying issue is that, as a text intended to guide practical cultivation, it completely omits the foundational practices of regulating the body and breath, thereby departing from the conventional model of holistically regulating the body, breath, and mind. This inevitably raises a question: lacking this foundation, how can its methods for regulating the mind be actualized? To answer this question, it is necessary to approach it from two perspectives. Any Dharma-gate (famen 法門) is born under the principle of “accordance with principle and conditions” (qili qiji 契理契機). The so-called “principle” (li 理) refers to its essence, while “conditions” (ji 機) encompasses the three elements of time, space, and people. Therefore, an inquiry into this manifestation of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu must, on the one hand, return to its essence, and on the other hand, examine it within the specific time, space, and people among whom it emerged and flourished. Furthermore, although the essence of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu does not change, the three elements of time, space, and people are in constant flux. Changes in these three factors very likely caused the practical landscape of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu to present a picture quite different from the time when it emerged and flourished. Thus, it is necessary to trace its trajectory further into subsequent historical periods.

3. The Internal Rationale: The Universality of Methods for Regulating the Body and Breath and the Intentional Omission by the Original Author and Commentators of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu

This article aims to explore the practical value of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu; therefore, it is first necessary to clarify what constitutes Buddhist cultivation practice. Buddhist methods of practice are rich and diverse; in essence, they can be categorized into four types: dhyāna contemplation (changuan 禪觀), Buddha-recitation (nianfo 念佛), precepts (jielv 戒律), and esoteric practices (mifa 密法). As Taixu 太虛 (1890–1947) stated: “I have attempted to divide the practice of the Buddha-dharma into the four practices of precepts, dhyāna, esotericism, and Pure Land7 (Jingtu 淨土). These four gates, I believe, can encompass all Dharma-gates of practice within the Buddha-dharma, and each should stand independently as a category.” (Taixu 1995, p. 199). The defining characteristic of dhyāna contemplation lies in the “dual practice of calming and contemplation” (zhiguan shuangyun 止觀雙運), whereas esoteric practices are characterized by the “correspondence of the three mysteries” (sanmi xiangying 三密相應). Therefore, regarding these two as distinct methods of practice is inherently unproblematic. Buddha-recitation originally belonged to dhyāna contemplation (see, e.g., Tang 2015, p. 563; Zhao 2017, pp. 17–23), such as the “recollection of the Buddha” (fosuinian 佛隨念) among the “six recollections” (liusuinian 六隨念), the “contemplation of the Buddha” (nianfo guan 念佛觀) among the “five meditations for settling the mind” (wutingxin guan 五停心觀), and pratyutpanna-samādhi (bozhou sanmei 般舟三昧). Later, through the emphasis and elaboration on “Buddha-recitation with faith and vows” (xinyuan nianfo 信願念佛) by figures such as Tanluan 曇鸞 (476–542), Daochuo 道綽 (562–645), and Shandao 善導 (613–681), its uniqueness gradually became apparent, making it a method of practice distinctly separate from dhyāna contemplation. With respect to precepts, they typically serve as a foundation and auxiliary, integrated with other methods of practice, and are rarely cultivated independently. As Yinshun 印順 (1906–2005) stated: “Thus, it is known that the precepts’ purification of body and speech truly serves as the requisite provision for concentration and wisdom” (Yinshun 2011, p. 139). However, within Buddhism, there remains the Vinaya school (Lvzong 律宗), which takes precepts as its core principle, as well as practitioners who exclusively cultivate dhūta practices (toutuo xing 頭陀行), all of whom take precepts as their foundation. Therefore, precepts must be regarded as an independent method of practice as well. Generally, any Buddhist school cultivates through these four methods of practice. Taking the Huayan school as an example, the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu discussed in this article belongs to dhyāna contemplation. Previous scholars have already reached a consensus on this point. For example, when enumerating the Dharma-gates of dhyāna contemplation, Taixu listed the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu (Taixu 1995, p. 199); Tang Yongtong 湯用彤 (1893–1964) also stated: “The monks of the Sui–Tang (隋唐) dynasties equally emphasized cultivation and theory... what they called the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu was, in fact, a dhyāna method” (Tang 1995, p. 27). Dhyāna contemplation is undoubtedly the primary method of practice of the Huayan school; in addition to the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu, the Contemplation on the Quelling of Falsehood and Return to the Source (Wangjin huanyuan guan 妄盡還源觀), the Contemplation of the Huayan Samādhi (Huayan sanmei guan 華嚴三昧觀), and the Contemplation of the Perfect Interfusion of the Three Sages (Sansheng yuanrong guan 三聖圓融觀), among others, all belong to this category. In fact, the majority of cultivation practices in Chinese Buddhism—such as Tiantai calming and contemplation, the “Fivefold Contemplation of Consciousness-Only” (wuchong weishi guan 五重唯識觀), and the “East Mountain Dharma-Gate” (Dongshan famen 東山法門)—all belong to the category of dhyāna contemplation. Master Taixu’s assertion that “the defining characteristic of Chinese Buddhism lies in Chan” (「中國佛學特質在禪」) (Taixu 2015, pp. 1–2) also holds true in terms of cultivation practice. Regarding Buddha-recitation, the twenty-one methods of Buddha-recitation listed by Fazang in the Record of Exploring the Mystery of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Huayan jing tanxuan ji 華嚴經探玄記), the five methods of Buddha-recitation summarized by Chengguan in the Commentary on the “Chapter on Practices and Vows” of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Huayan jing xingyuan pin shu 華嚴經行願品疏), the Inexhaustible Lamp (Wujin deng 無盡燈, now lost) authored by Yihe 義和 (dates unknown), and the Treatise on the Samādhi of Huayan Buddha-Recitation (Huayan nianfo sanmei lun 華嚴念佛三昧論) written by Peng Jiqing 彭際清 (1740–1796), among others, all belong to this category (for details, see Fazang 692, pp. 457a18–b12; Chengguan 798, pp. 99b17–c8; Yihe n.d., pp. 169c05–170a12; Peng 1783, pp. 713c6–718b17). Precepts serve as the foundation of practice across all schools, and the Huayan school is naturally no exception; this requires no further elaboration. As for esoteric practices, according to the Biography of Master Fazang (Fazang heshang zhuan 法藏和尚傳), Fazang once used the method of the Eleven-faced Guanyin (Shiyimian Guanyin fa 十一面觀音法) to repel enemies, and used the Maheśvara Dhāraṇī (Dazizai tuoluoni 大自在陀羅尼) to pray for snow (for details, see Choe 904, pp. 283c16–284b29; J. Chen 2023, pp. 141–54). The northern Huayan school during the subsequent Liao (遼) and Yuan (元) dynasties relied even more heavily on esoteric practices as their primary cultivation, with Daochen’s 道㲀 (1056–1128) Collection of the Essentials for Achieving Buddhahood through the Perfect Interfusion of the Apparent and the Esoteric (Xianmi yuantong chengfo xinyao ji 顯密圓通成佛心要集) standing as the representative achievement.

Moreover, in actual cultivation, the four aforementioned methods of practice must be combined with a certain view (jianjie 見解); there is no “pure” method of practice detached from views. This principle is elucidated in many ways within Buddhism, such as Zhixu’s statement regarding “establishing contemplation based on doctrine” (yijiao sheguan 依教設觀) (Zhixu n.d.a, p. 936c24), which means establishing contemplative practice based on doctrinal classification (panjiao 判教—the core of the doctrinal principles of various schools). Additionally, a concrete example is Zhiyi’s elucidation of the method of counting the breath (shuxi fa 數息法): “Ordinary beings, non-Buddhists, adherents of the Two Vehicles, and bodhisattvas all universally contemplate the method of counting the breath, but their understanding and wisdom (jiehui 解慧) differ; therefore, their realization of nirvāṇa is distinct” (「凡夫、外道、二乘、菩薩通觀數息一法, 而解惠不同, 是故證涅槃殊別。」) (Zhiyi 575, pp. 552a15–16). This not only demonstrates that practice and view are inevitably fused within specific cultivation methods, but also emphasizes the crucial importance of views. Regarding the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu, its essence must also be the combination of a certain method of practice and a certain view. Its nature as a method of practice, as stated above, belongs to dhyāna contemplation. From the perspective of views, the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu integrates multiple streams of thought: the “Contemplation of True Emptiness” belongs to prajñā-śūnyatā thought, the “Contemplation of the Non-obstruction of Principle and Phenomena” belongs to tathāgatagarbha (rulaizang 如來藏) thought, and the “Contemplation of Total Pervasion and Inclusion” belongs to the thought of the unimpeded interpenetration of all phenomena. Therefore, the essence of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu is precisely the fusion of the three views—prajñā-śūnyatā, tathāgatagarbha, and the unimpeded interpenetration of all phenomena—with dhyāna contemplation. Yet, regarding the issues of regulating the body and breath that this article focuses on, the influence of these views is not significant, as they primarily function at the level of regulating the mind and have very little connection to the levels of regulating the body and breath. Therefore, the following discussion will focus on the essence of the method of practice of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu—dhyāna contemplation.

Although all Buddhist cultivation practices aim at realizing bodhi (enlightenment), the emphasis of different methods of practice varies; consequently, the roles played by the body, breath, and mind within them differ accordingly. In this regard, esoteric practices and dhyāna contemplation form a stark contrast.8 Esoteric practices regard the body, breath, and mind all as objects requiring transformation, and thus feature abundant methods of practice for regulating the body and breath (see, e.g., Gray 2021, p. 89; Ondračka 2024, pp. 225–48). In dhyāna contemplation, the body and breath are generally to be transcended; both regulating the body and regulating the breath serve to regulate the mind. As Zhiyi stated: “If one’s physical actions are coarse and rough, the breath will follow and become coarse; because the breath is coarse, the mind will scatter and be difficult to gather” (「若所作麁獷, 則氣息隨麁。以氣麁故, 則心散難錄」) (Zhiyi 569–572, pp. 465c9–10). Therefore, the body and breath only need to be regulated to a state of balance so as not to interfere with mind—the body is regulated to be “neither too loose nor too tight” (「不寬不急」) (Zhiyi 569–572, p. 490a3), and the breath is regulated to be “neither obstructed nor slipping” (「不澁不滑」) (Zhiyi 569–572, pp. 490a16–17)—after which the primary effort is applied to the mind. Compared to esoteric practices, the content regarding regulating the body and breath in dhyāna contemplation is thus much simpler. For this precise reason, the methods for regulating the body and breath across different types of dhyāna contemplation are essentially universal. For example, when Daoxuan 道宣 (596–667) expounded on the “essential methods of seated meditation” (zuochan yaofa 坐禪要法), he only briefly enumerated the methods for regulating the body and breath, and then pointed out: “As for the remaining various methods, they are as described in the sūtras” (「自餘諸法如經所說」) (Daoxuan n.d., pp. 827c11–28), meaning that the relevant methods are detailed in other sūtras and śāstras and need not be repeated. Moreover, rather than being exclusive to Buddhism, these foundational meditation techniques were already universal methods of practice shared among various Indian traditions, including Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism (see, e.g., Bronkhorst 2000, pp. 53, 78). Since the Dharma-gates of regulating the body and breath are universal across different types of dhyāna contemplation, the absence of such content in the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu is theoretically inconsequential—meaning these methods can be drawn from other canonical sources. Furthermore, this phenomenon is not unique to the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu. For instance, “contemplating one’s own mind” (ziguan xin 自觀心) in the Madhyamāgama (Zhong ahan jing 中阿含經), the Mahāyāna Method of Calming and Contemplation (Dacheng zhiguan famen 大乘止觀法門) by Huisi 慧思 (515–577), and the “Fivefold Contemplation of Consciousness-Only” by Kuiji 窺基 (632–682) are all Dharma-gates of dhyāna contemplation that directly enter into regulating the mind (Saṃghadeva 398, pp. 598b9–c20; Huisi n.d., pp. 641a3–664a28; Kuiji n.d., pp. 258b19–260a9).

However, another issue needs to be clarified: the previous analysis only demonstrates that the absence of regulating the body and breath in the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu does not constitute a fundamental obstacle objectively. But regarding the subjective intent of the original author and commentators, was the omission intentional—out of awareness of the universality of these methods—or was it due to unintentional negligence? This still warrants further investigation. First, considering the cultivation experiences of the relevant original author and commentators, Dushun is frequently referred to as a Chan Master (chanshi 禪師)—that is, one adept at dhyāna (see, e.g., Dushun n.d., p. 514a4; Daoxuan 645, p. 653c13; Fazang n.d.b, p. 166c9). The Further Biographies of Eminent Monks (Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳) records that in his early years, he “undertook the practice of dhyāna concentration” (「受持定業」) under Sengzhen 僧珍 (473–548) (Daoxuan 645, p. 653b17). Thus, he must have long been familiar with foundational skills such as regulating the body and breath. Fazang was similarly adept at dhyāna; the Biography of Master Fazang states that he “took dhyāna bliss as food” (「禪悅其食」) (Choe 904, p. 280b24), and he also had experience practicing Daoist ingestion techniques (ershu 餌術) in his early years (Choe 904, p. 281b1). Chengguan’s scholarly and cultivation background was even more extensive, encompassing Tiantai calming and contemplation, the Chan methods of the Northern and Southern Schools (Nanbei zong 南北宗), and Esoteric rituals (Zhipan 1269, pp. 293b3–c3). Regarding Zongmi, his Ritual for the Cultivation and Realization at the Bodhimanda of the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment provides systematic discussions on regulating the body and mind in its “Eight Gates of the Method of Seated Meditation (zuochan fa bamen 坐禪法八門)” (for details, see Zongmi n.d.b, pp. 499b13–510b22). From the backgrounds of these four Huayan patriarchs closely associated with the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu, it is clear that they were all well-versed in dhyāna cultivation; thus, it is unlikely that they inadvertently overlooked the regulation of the body and breath. Second, within the Huayan school, almost none of the contemplation methods involve regulating the body or regulating the breath. According to the summary by the Japanese monk Gyōnen 凝然 (1240–1321), there are ten primary contemplation methods of the Huayan school: the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu, the Contemplation of the Huayan Samādhi, the Contemplation on the Quelling of Falsehood and Return to the Source, the Contemplation of Samantabhadra (Puxian guan 普賢觀), the Tenfold Contemplation of Consciousness-Only (Shichong weishi guan 十重唯識觀), the Contemplation of the Mind-Essential of Huayan (Huayan xinyao guan 華嚴心要觀), the Contemplation of the Five Aggregates (Wuyun guan 五蘊觀), the Contemplation of the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination (Shier yinyuan guan 十二因緣觀), the Contemplation of the Perfect Interfusion of the Three Sages, and the Contemplation of the Flower Store World (Huazang shijie guan 華藏世界觀) (Gyōnen 1919, pp. 592–94). Except for the Contemplation of the Flower Store World, which is lost and cannot be verified, the remaining nine contemplation methods all focus directly on regulating the mind. If the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu alone omitted the regulation of the body and breath, it might be considered an unintentional oversight; but since all the contemplation methods are thus, the probability of oversight is minimal. Third, the fact that the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu is titled “contemplation” (guan 觀) rather than “calming and contemplation” (zhiguan 止觀) also suggests to some extent that the original author and commentators intentionally omitted the content of regulating the body and breath. Generally speaking, “calming” refers to “binding the mind to an object” (「係心於緣」)—that is, focusing the mind on a single point; “contemplation” refers to “discerning and profoundly penetrating” (「分別深達」)—that is, conducting deep observation and contemplation (Sengzhao n.d., p. 381a2). “Calming” typically serves as the foundation for “contemplation,”9 and methods for regulating the body and breath are mostly discussed within “calming.” From the perspective of specific methods of practice: the cultivation practices of the Huayan school are mostly titled “contemplation,” which basically do not involve regulating the body or regulating the breath; whereas the cultivation practices of the Tiantai school (Tiantai zong 天台宗) are mostly titled “calming and contemplation,” most of which encompass the cultivation of the body, breath, and mind.10 It appears that by naming it “contemplation,” the original author and commentators of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu likely intended to enter directly into the method of regulating the mind. Finally, when expounding on calming and contemplation in his Commentary on the Meaning of the Mahāyāna Awakening of Faith (Dacheng qixin lun yiji 大乘起信論義記), Fazang briefly mentioned the method of regulating the body and breath, subsequently stating: “explained extensively in Zhiyi’s two-volume calming and contemplation” (「廣如天台顗禪師二卷止觀中說也」) (Fazang n.d.a, pp. 283b4–5). This indicates that Fazang was aware of the universality of this content and thus intentionally omitted it. Although this statement is not specifically directed at the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu, it still holds significant referential value for understanding why the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu lacks regulating the body and breath, serving as supporting evidence for an intentional omission.

In summary, since regulating the body and breath are inherently universal foundational skills in dhyāna contemplation, their intentional omission by the original author and commentators of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu poses no fundamental obstacle. In terms of actual practice, however, this effectively establishes a threshold for practitioners: before engaging with the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu, practitioners must either already possess the foundation for regulating the body and breath or be capable of acquiring these necessary resources from other sources. As to whether this prerequisite could be universally satisfied, a reasonable judgment can only be made by returning to the historical and spatial context in which the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu emerged and flourished, as well as the audience it addressed.

4. External Conditions: The Flourishing of Buddhism in Chang’an During the Sui–Tang Dynasties and the Accessibility of Methods for Regulating the Body and Breath

As discussed above, in the process where the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu emerged and flourished, Dushun, Fazang, Chengguan, and Zongmi played the most crucial roles, and in their spheres of activity, Chang’an 長安 consistently occupied the central position. Dushun was born in Yongzhou 雍州 (the capital region, administered from Chang’an); he studied in Chang’an in his early years and ultimately passed away at Yishan Temple (Yishan si 義善寺) in Chang’an (Daoxuan 645, pp. 653b15–654a13). Moreover, his traces of activity are also frequently associated with Mount Zhongnan (Zhongnan shan 終南山) in Chang’an (see, e.g., Dushun n.d., pp. 513c23, 514a3–4; Zongmi 823, pp. 611b19–20; Zhipan 1269, p. 276c6). Fazang also resided in Chang’an for many years, served as the abbot of Great Chongfu Temple (Da Chongfu si 大崇福寺) and Great Jianfu Temple (Da Jianfu si 大薦福寺), and passed away in Chang’an (Choe 904, pp. 280b2–c13, 283c28–29). Although Chengguan was active in the south during his early years, he subsequently lived in Chang’an for about sixty years until his passing (Zhipan 1269, pp. 293b3–c3). Zongmi’s whereabouts were uncertain in his early years, but he later also resided in Chang’an for over twenty years and ultimately passed away there (Zongmi n.d.a, pp. 576c4–577c6; Zongmi n.d.c, pp. 838b22–23; Dong 1983, pp. 7691–94). Therefore, Chang’an can be considered the homeland of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu.11 Regarding the temporal factor, the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu emerged and flourished primarily during the Sui (隋) dynasty and the early Tang (唐) dynasty (prior to the An Lushan Rebellion, Anshi zhi luan 安史之亂); therefore, the following discussion will take this period as its primary scope of investigation.

Fang Litian 方立天 summarizes Chang’an during the Sui–Tang dynasties as the contemporary “center for the convergence of monastic talent” (「僧才凝聚中心」), “center for scripture translation” (「經典翻譯中心」), “center for the propagation of Buddhism” (「佛教弘傳中心」), “center for the establishment of schools” (「宗派創立中心」), and “center for cultural exchange” (「文化交流中心」) (Fang 2010, pp. 30–36). Among these, two points are most directly related to the issue discussed in this article: monastic talent and scriptures. Regarding monastic talent, there were numerous eminent monks native-born to Chang’an during this period. According to the textual research of Li Yinghui 李映輝, in the early Tang dynasty, there were approximately 58 eminent monks whose native place was the Guannei Circuit (Guannei dao 關內道) (administered from Chang’an), ranking third in the country. Although the number of native-born eminent monks was not the highest, as the Buddhist center of the time, Chang’an, attracted a large number of eminent monks from other regions. Therefore, in the early Tang dynasty, the number of eminent monks who primarily resided in the Guannei Circuit was approximately 215, firmly ranking first in the country and accounting for nearly half of the national total (for details, see Li 2004, pp. 7–84). Furthermore, the imperial court would also actively recruit eminent monks from various regions to enter the capital; for example, after Emperor Yang of Sui (Sui Yangdi 隋煬帝, 569–618) established Riyan Temple (Riyan si 日嚴寺), he successively recruited twelve monks from the Jiangnan region (Jiangnan 江南) to take up residence there (for details, see Y. Wang 1999, pp. 191–203). Regarding the situation of scriptures, Chang’an itself was the center of convergence and radiation for sutras and śāstras at the time, as well as a center for translating scriptures, making it the first place to access new translation resources of Buddhist texts. In addition, due to the gathering of eminent monks, the compositional and commentarial works in Chang’an were also extremely abundant. Benefiting from this, the translations and writings in the Guannei Circuit during the early Tang dynasty totaled approximately 161 works, ranking first in the country. Regarding the scale of book collections, according to the research of Wang Xiang 王翔, there were approximately 150 to 300 Buddhist institutions in Chang’an during the Sui–Tang dynasties, the majority of which had book collections; moreover, through horizontal comparison, he points out that the volume of book collections in the Buddhist temples of Chang’an during the Sui–Tang dynasties far exceeded that of the Latin Christian world during its peak (X. Wang 2014, pp. 207–32).

From the above, it can be seen that the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu emerged and flourished in an environment where eminent monks gathered, and Buddhist textual resources were abundant. Against this background, its practice of omitting to regulate the body and breath was not difficult to cope with for the people of that time and place. First, there were numerous eminent monks in Chang’an at that time; for these individuals, foundational dhyāna contemplation training, including regulating the body and breath, should have long been mastered—the cultivation experiences of the aforementioned Dushun and others can already demonstrate this. Not only was this true for eminent monks, but the practice of dhyāna was also a basic daily task for the general monastic community. As recorded in the Biography of Master Fazang, the monks and nuns instructed by Fazang took “upholding the precepts and dwelling in dhyāna as their constant duty” (「以護律棲禪為恒務」) (Choe 904, pp. 285a13–14). In addition, some remarks by Chengguan can provide us with more specific information:

Several disciples earnestly requested, asking me to give an exposition. They all said they had focused their thoughts, visited friends, and sought the source. Whether learning or transmitting, they had widely sought various explanations. Their doubts and stagnation accumulated over the years have only now been illuminated. Diligent day and night, they wished for the profound meaning to be explained. Considering my declining years, it is hard to expect how long my life, like a candle in the wind, will last; I fear that the wondrous contemplation will be submerged and that branching words will confuse the tracks. Thus, I comply with their sincere requests and briefly analyze its profound subtleties. I title it the Profound Mirror of the [Huayan] Dharmadhātu, hoping that future friends in the Way will see the deep inner sincerity of the ancient sages (數子懇求, 叩余一闡。咸言注想, 訪友尋源。或學或傳, 遍求眾釋。積歲疑滯, 今方煥焉。夕惕勤勤, 願釋深旨。顧以西垂之歲, 風燭難期, 恐妙觀之淪湑, 使枝辭之亂轍。乃順誠請, 略析幽微。名《法界玄鏡》, 冀將來道友, 見古賢之深衷矣).

(Chengguan n.d., pp. 672a17–22)

From this, it can be seen that Chengguan’s composition of the Profound Mirror of the Huayan Dharmadhātu originated from the earnest requests of several disciples. The text mentions that these disciples already had many years of cultivation experience; thus, they should have already proficiently mastered foundational skills such as regulating the body breath. Therefore, at least as far as the direct audience of the Profound Mirror of the Huayan Dharmadhātu is concerned, directly discussing the method of regulating the mind poses no major obstacle.

Second, there were other monks who, for various reasons, were not yet proficient in dhyāna contemplation in their early years.12 However, living in a Buddhist center like Chang’an during the Sui–Tang dynasties, where Buddhist textual resources were highly abundant, acquiring the relevant materials was not a difficult task should the need to practice dhyāna contemplation arise. In terms of voluminous works, several treatises on calming and contemplation authored by Zhiyi had already been transmitted to Chang’an; the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra translated by Xuanzang also contained relevant content. Other miscellaneous sources are even more abundant and too numerous to detail here. Furthermore, the practice of dhyāna contemplation often requires guidance from experienced individuals, and since Chang’an was a gathering place for eminent monks, obtaining such guidance was relatively easy.

Comparing the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu with the contemplation methods of the contemporaneous Consciousness-Only school (Weishi zong 唯識宗) and the Tiantai school can also provide corroboration for the above conclusion. The Consciousness-Only school shares a similar situation with the Huayan school: the representative contemplation method of the Consciousness-Only school, the Fivefold Contemplation of Consciousness-Only, similarly lacks content on regulating the body and breath (for details, see Kuiji n.d., pp. 258b19–260a9), and it happens to have also originated in Chang’an during the Sui–Tang dynasties. In comparison, the Tiantai school, which emerged and flourished in the Jiangzhe region (Jiangzhe 江浙), exhibits different characteristics in this regard. During the Sui–Tang dynasties, although Buddhism in Jiangzhe was also flourishing, in terms of the period focused on in this article—the Sui dynasty to the early Tang dynasty—it still could not compare to Chang’an. Looking at the two elements of eminent monks and Buddhist textual resources: in the early Tang dynasty, there were approximately 80 eminent monks permanently residing in the Jiangnan Circuit (Jiangnan dao 江南道) (Li 2004, pp. 61–65), far fewer than the 215 in the Guannei Circuit mentioned above. Regarding translated works, the Jiangnan Circuit had no scripture translations in the early Tang dynasty, and there were about 41 compositional works (Li 2004, pp. 152–54), which is also far lower than the 161 works in the Guannei Circuit mentioned above. Against this background, the number of eminent monks was limited, making it impossible to assume that the majority of practitioners had already mastered foundational dhyāna cultivation skills; at the same time, acquiring relevant resources and guidance was not as convenient as in Chang’an. From this perspective, the practice of Tiantai calming and contemplation, detailing regulating the body and breath similarly, aligns with the historical and spatial conditions in which it emerged and flourished.

5. Subsequent Developments: Transmission, Limitation, and Supplementation

Regarding the dhyāna contemplation essence of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu and the temporal and spatial conditions in which it emerged and flourished, its practice of omitting regulating the body and breath, although establishing a threshold for practitioners, does not constitute a fundamental obstacle, much less can it be asserted on this basis that it lacks practical value. Although the dhyāna contemplation essence of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu remains unchanged, the elements of time, space, and the people it encounters will change. Especially after the Huichang Persecution of Buddhism (Huichang fanan 會昌法難), the Huayan school suffered severe setbacks, and various conditions changed drastically; the Buddhist center also gradually shifted from the north to the south. Against this background, whether the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu would consequently face new problems still warrants further inquiry.

After the Tang dynasty, the development of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu was most clearly reflected in its commentaries. Although commentary is primarily a theoretical achievement, commentators generally aimed to promote cultivation practices. As Jingyuan 淨源 (1011–1088) stated:

The composition of commentaries and records is not merely about extensively citing doctrinal characteristics and broadly narrating chapter divisions. It lies in elucidating the introductory intent and clarifying the commentarial words, enabling those who expound and receive them to grasp the profound meaning upon reading the text, establish understanding, and accomplish contemplation; this is its general outline (夫鈔記之作也, 非謂旁引教相, 廣敘章門而已。在乎發序意, 通注辭, 使其說授者, 臨文到旨, 造解成觀, 此其大槩也).

(Yitian n.d., pp. 562a18–20)

Moreover, commentators themselves were often practitioners; for example, Bensong 本嵩 (fl. 1083–1088), the author of the Record of Penetrating the Mystery of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu (Fajie guan tongxuan ji 法界觀通玄記), also “cultivated Huayan and focused his mind on the wondrous contemplation” (「修習華嚴, 存心妙觀」) (quoted in S. Wang 2016, p. 106). Therefore, the level of activity in commentary can also indirectly reflect the status of cultivation. According to the compilation by Wang Song, there were more than thirty commentaries on the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu from the Tang to the Song dynasty (S. Wang 2016, pp. 48–52), demonstrating the high regard in which it was held. Regarding direct records of the cultivation of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu, there was no shortage of practitioners across various dynasties. For example, Prime Minister Lü Huiqing 呂惠卿 (1032–1111) of the Northern Song (北宋) dynasty stated, “When I obtained this contemplation, I practiced according to its teachings, and truly realized that among all things in the world, nothing is not the mind; yet the mark of my mind cannot be grasped” (「及得是觀, 如其說而修之, 乃真知天下之物, 無非心者, 而吾心相, 不可得也」) (Yitian n.d., pp. 561b2–6); the Huayan Mahāsattva Ji (Huayan Ji dashi 華嚴寂大士, 1148–1226) of the Jin (金) dynasty, who “left no Buddhist text unread” (「於佛書無不讀」), “transmitted the Contemplation of the Huayan Dharmadhātu to Master Bao of Tianning Temple in Fenzhou (Fenzhou Tianning Bao heshang 汾州天寧寶和尚)” (「授華嚴法界觀於汾州天寧寶和尚」) (Minghe n.d., pp. 387c6–23); and Master Rugui 如桂 (dates unknown) of the Ming (明) dynasty “visited spiritual friends throughout the country, was highly proficient in the doctrinal texts... and took the cultivation of the Contemplation of the Huayan Dharmadhātu as his central principle” (「遍參海內知識, 精通教典……修華嚴法界觀為宗」) (Qian and Fan n.d., pp. 412a2–6). Yet, it is not difficult to notice that practitioners of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu were basically concentrated among the educated elite: Lü Huiqing was a prime minister, and Mahāsattva Ji and Master Rugui were also highly proficient in doctrinal texts. This phenomenon indicates that while the practical value of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu is undeniably beyond doubt, the threshold created by its omission of the foundational practices of regulating the body and breath continuously confined it to the educated elite.

During its subsequent development, the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu did not always manifest as a practice solely focused on regulating the mind. In the early Qing dynasty, in order to respond to the Tiantai school’s critique of “having teachings but no contemplation” (youjiao wuguan 有教無觀) (for details, see Zongjian 1237, pp. 359b6–12, 359c3–5) and simultaneously refine the Huayan system of teachings and contemplation, the Huayan monk Xufa 續法 (1641–1728) believed that the Huayan school needed a specialized treatise similar to the Outline of the Four Teachings of Tiantai (Tiantai sijiao yi 天台四教儀) to enable practitioners to easily comprehend the Huayan teachings and contemplation:

The two schools of Tai [Tiantai] and Xian [Xianshou/Huayan] ride side-by-side within the empire. However, those who practice Tiantai sometimes ridicule the Xian lineage for having teachings but no contemplation. Those who practice the Huayan school believe that the name of the five teachings is not excessive, the meaning of contemplation manifests naturally, the capacities of beings are fully gathered, and the ultimate principle is perfectly complete. My Dharma Lord Ciyun, Brother Bating (Ciyun fazhu Bating xiong 慈雲法主百亭兄), sighed deeply and said: “The four teachings of the Tiantai school were originally in the voluminous works; later generations recorded and compiled them, calling it the Outline of the Four Teachings (Sijiao yi 四教儀), making it easy for people to understand. The five teachings of our school are also in various works, but they just haven’t been compiled into a record yet” (台賢二宗, 並轡海內。然習台者, 或以賢家有教無觀譏之。習賢宗者, 以五教之名不濫, 而觀義自彰, 機收盡而理致圓備。吾慈雲法主百亭兄, 喟然嘆曰: 台宗四教, 原在大部, 後人錄而成集, 曰四教儀, 使人易曉。吾宗五教, 亦在諸部, 特未成錄耳).

(Xufa 1675, pp. 688a15–19)

To this end, Xufa authored the Outline of the Five Teachings of Xianshou (Xianshou wujiao yi 賢首五教儀). This book systematically elucidates the doctrines and cultivation practices of the Huayan school, and the cultivation section unfolds based on the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu. Before formally explaining the “Three Contemplations of the Dharmadhātu” (Fajie sanguan 法界三觀), Xufa specifically established the “Expedient Means for the Three Contemplations” (Sanguan fangbian 三觀方便), under which he set up “Ten Gates” (Shimen 十門), detailing the preliminary cultivation and realization required before formal dhyāna contemplation, which included the methods of regulating the body and breath. For example:

Before engaging in seated meditation, first regulate food and sleep: regulate food so as to be neither hungry nor full, and regulate sleep so as to be neither overly restricted nor indulgent. After engaging in seated meditation, one should regulate the body and breath: regulate the body so it is neither too tight nor too loose, and regulate the breath so it is neither obstructed nor slipping. Once the body and breath are regulated, one should next close the mouth, with the lips and teeth touching, the tongue resting against the upper palate, and the eyes cutting off external light, not allowing them to be fully open; sit upright and straight, and absolutely do not sway (未坐禪前, 先調食睡, 調食不飢不飽, 調睡不節不恣。既坐禪後, 應調身息, 調身不急不寬, 調息不澁不滑。身息若調, 次當閉口, 唇齒相拄, 舌向上齶, 眼斷外光, 無令全開, 正直端坐, 切勿搖動).

(Xufa 1675, pp. 666c15–19)

The exposition on the body and breath here is still relatively brief; however, when discussing the causes and treatments of meditation sickness (chanbing 禪病), it becomes much more detailed. For example, the method of curing illness through the “Six Breaths”13 (liuqi 六氣) mentioned therein:

As for contemplating mental imagery and using the six kinds of breath to cure illnesses, this means contemplation can cure illness. They are: first, chui 吹 [blowing]; second, hu 呼 [exhaling]; third, xi 嘻 [sighing]; fourth, he 呵 [yawning]; fifth, xu 噓 [hissing]; sixth, si 呬 [panting]. These six kinds of breaths are all produced within the lips and mouth, used expediently through mental contemplation, performed by turning the body, and applied continuously and subtly. The verse says: The heart corresponds to he and the kidneys to chui; the spleen is hu and the lungs are si, as all sages know. When heat arises in the liver, the word xu arrives; where the triple burner (sanjiao 三焦) is congested, simply say xi (但觀心想, 用六種氣以治病者, 即是觀能治病。謂一, 吹; 二, 呼; 三, 嘻; 四, 呵; 五, 噓; 六, 呬。此六種息, 皆於唇口之中, 想心方便, 轉側而作, 綿微而用。頌曰: 心配屬呵腎屬吹, 脾呼肺呬聖皆知。肝藏熱來噓字至, 三焦壅處但言嘻).

(Xufa 1675, pp. 674c11–15)

With the supplementation of the content on regulating the body and breath, the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu finally became a contemplation method equipped with the complete sequence of body, breath, and mind, and its overly theoretical tendency was also balanced.

6. Conclusions

This article focuses on the doubts concerning the practical value of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu, revealing the specific reason for its theoretical character—the absence of methods for regulating the body and breath. Examining this issue against the background of the dhyāna contemplation essence of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu and the temporal and spatial context of Chang’an during the Sui–Tang dynasties, where it emerged and flourished, it can be seen that although this omission renders the contemplation method incomplete, it is not sufficient to fundamentally negate its practical value. In subsequent generations, the cultivation of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu was primarily transmitted among the educated elite, eventually being supplemented and perfected by Xufa during the Qing dynasty. It should be noted that because this article primarily focuses on responding to the academic community’s doubts concerning the practical value of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu, the discussion does not center on directly expounding its practical value. Instead, by analyzing these doubts, it investigates whether the theoretical character of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu hindered its practical value. Therefore, concerning the issue of the practical value of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu, the research presented in this article constitutes preliminary and foundational work. Based on the conclusion of this article—that the theoretical character of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu did not result in fundamental practical defects—subsequent research should proceed to directly unearth and systematically articulate the practical value of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu, particularly its unique characteristics.

Furthermore, as one of the representative schools of Chinese Buddhism, the doubts the Huayan school faces at the practical level also reflect, to a certain extent, the situation of Chinese Buddhism as a whole. Especially in comparative studies of Chinese, Tibetan, and Theravāda Buddhism, the academic community has engaged in various discussions regarding whether the cultivation practices of Chinese Buddhism are overly theoretical, formalized, or lack completeness or systematicity (see, e.g., Feng 2015; Xuan 2017, pp. 38–41; Zheng 2020, pp. 11–15; Hao 2022; Sharf 1995, pp. 228–83). Admittedly, these issues are more complex than the case of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu discussed in this article and cannot be detailed within this scope. However, through the research in this article, two main points can be summarized that merit attention in the study of the cultivation practices of Chinese Buddhism: First, identifying the essence of the cultivation practices of Chinese Buddhism. The cultivation practices of Chinese Buddhism are inevitably also the product of the integration of “views” and “methods of practice.” Regarding the views, they can generally be divided into categories such as Hīnayāna, prajñā-śūnyatā, Consciousness-Only, tathāgatagarbha, and the unimpeded interpenetration of all phenomena;14 all methods of practice are formed under the guidance of one or more concepts. Therefore, the understanding and evaluation of the cultivation practices of Chinese Buddhism must first clarify the guiding concepts behind them. Regarding methods of practice, overall, the methods of practice in Chinese Buddhism primarily consist of dhyāna contemplation. Therefore, they should be placed within the system of dhyāna contemplation and examined using the standards of dhyāna contemplation; they should not be evaluated in a generalized manner, much less should dhyāna contemplation be framed by the requirements of other methods of practice. When discussing specific issues of cultivation practices, it is necessary to discern whether the method ultimately belongs to dhyāna contemplation, Buddha-recitation, esoteric practices, or precepts, and explore it within its respective category. Second, the cultivation practices of Chinese Buddhism are also rooted in specific time, space, and people, and present different features depending on these three elements. This point is complex and will not be expanded upon here; it suffices to emphasize one point: the understanding and evaluation of the cultivation practices of Chinese Buddhism must absolutely not be detached from their corresponding specific contexts. The above two points may provide a beneficial reference coordinate for the study of the cultivation practices of Chinese Buddhism.